You are on page 1of 4


United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit


June 15, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court


No. 11-7066
(D.C. No. 6:11-CV-00049-RAW)
(E.D. Okla.)


Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Lagrita Chiles appeals the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil
rights claim against Justin Jones, the Director of the Oklahoma Department of

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Corrections (ODOC) in his individual capacity.1 The district court dismissed the
complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, and we affirm.
Ms. Chiles brought suit as the special administrator of the estate of Jerry West,
an inmate at the Muskogee Community Work Center, which is under the control of
the ODOC. She alleged in her complaint that Mr. Wests treating physician had
provided written notice to ODOC that Mr. West needed to be provided with a bottom
bunk for sleeping. One night in November 2009, an employee at the Work Center
ordered Mr. West to sleep in a top bunk. That night, Mr. West fell from the top bunk
and died several days later from the head trauma he suffered in the fall.
Ms. Chiles alleged in her complaint that Mr. Jones violated the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments and such other constitutional [rights] as may be
applicable; that all of the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to
[Mr. Wests] needs and welfare, including his medical needs and general welfare.
Aplt. App. at 12. In response to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on qualified
immunity grounds, Ms. Chiles argued that Mr. West has a constitutional right
to have the medical restrictions provided by his doctor to Defendant

Ms. Chiles also brought claims against the ODOC and Mr. Jones in his official
capacity, but she does not appeal the district courts dismissal of those claims as
barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Aplt. Br. at 1-2; Reply Br. at 2. Nor does she
appeal the dismissal of her state law negligence claim for failure to comply with the
jurisdictional requirements of the Oklahoma Governmental Torts Claim Act. Two
other named individual defendants were never served.

Jones . . . honored, but she did not articulate any relevant court decisions suggesting
that this was a clearly established constitutional right. Id. at 27-29. See Scott v.
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 377 (2007) (holding that public officials are entitled to
qualified immunity unless the plaintiff demonstrates that there is a violation of a
constitutional right and that right is clearly established . . . in light of the specific
context of the case (internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court ruled that
Mr. Jones was entitled to qualified immunity because neither Ms. Chiless complaint
nor the courts own review of Supreme Court, Tenth Circuit or clear weight of
authority from other courts revealed this to be a clearly established right. See
Robbins v. Okla., 519 F.3d 1242, 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that to avoid
dismissal based on qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to
show (assuming they are true) that the defendants plausibly violated their
constitutional rights, and that those rights were clearly established at the time.).
We review de novo the district courts decision on a motion to dismiss under
[Rule] 12(b)(6) based on qualified immunity. Denver Justice & Peace Comm., Inc.
v. City of Golden, 405 F.3d 923, 927 (10th Cir. 2005). Applying this standard and
upon careful consideration of the parties appellate briefs, the district court record,
and relevant case law, we conclude the district court judge appropriately granted
Mr. Joness motion to dismiss.


Accordingly, we AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons set forth in the
district courts Order of May 16, 2011. See Aplt. App. at 46-47.

Entered for the Court

Timothy M. Tymkovich
Circuit Judge